Posts by Jonathan Hoffman

Oxfam and the Board - what should happen if the red lines are crossed

Jonathan Hoffman — Sun, 19 May 2013 23:54:38 +0100

I have been asked to set out what I said today at the Board.

In January the Oxfam tie-up was approved with the following safeguard:

We will discontinue our involvement if OXFAM GB:

1. Supports a boycott of any type of Israeli goods.

2. Partners with or supports any organization that promotes or condones violence.

3. Partners with or supports any organisation that calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.

To ensure that these parameters are rigorously maintained with regard to the Grow Tatzmiach project, the Board will create an oversight committee to monitor Grow Tatzmiach on a continual basis, whose members are to be chosen by the Executive from Deputies who volunteer for this role.

If in the opinion of the monitoring committee the connection is being exploited in any way to the detriment of the State of Israel then the project will be terminated.

Should the monitoring committee (of which I am a member) have ruled that one of the three 'red lines' has been crossed, it would be entirely contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the motion passed in January for the Executive to do anything other than abandon the tie-up, without hesitation. Moreover if the monitoring committee has so ruled, surely Deputies have a right to know!

Gary Mond (Deputy for the JNF), speaking in the debate, referred to the many Deputies who had only voted in January for the Oxfam tie-up because of the assurance of the red lines. For those red lines to now be ignored, he said, would turn the Board in general and the president in particular into laughing stocks.

Church of Scotland pulls back

Jonathan Hoffman — Thu, 09 May 2013 18:02:49 +0100

http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/news_and_events/news/articles/the_inh...

The recognition of the Church of Scotland that "the report ... has given cause for concern" - and the good faith they have shown by immediately removing it from their website pending revision - are both very welcome.

However the real test will be whether the revision is unobjectionable. In particular it will not be acceptable if the revision consists solely of an additional preamble, leaving the remainder of the document unchanged.

Well done to the Board of Deputies and The Scottish Council of Jewish Communities for persuading the Church of Scotland to revise this objectionable document.

Prof Hawking's cancellation due to health - not to BDS lobby

Jonathan Hoffman — Wed, 08 May 2013 13:41:18 +0100

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3476/prof_hawking_trip_not_cancell...

Postscript:

The Cambridge spokesman Tim Holt has changed his story: “We have now received confirmation from Professor Hawking’s office that a letter was sent on Friday to the Israeli President’s office regarding his decision not to attend the Presidential Conference, based on advice from Palestinian academics that he should respect the boycott. We had understood previously that his decision was based purely on health grounds having been advised by doctors not to fly."

Maybe Mr Holt can also confirm that - in the interests of consistency - Professor Hawking will no longer use any medicine or medical procedure developed in Israel.

Postscript #2:

The more renowned is a man and the more specialised his field, the more likely he is to pronounce ex cathedra on matters on which he is totally ignorant...

Postscript #3:

How would Stephen Hawking fare in the non-Israel Middle East?

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167837#.UYwLoEoTTdd

These Pears Are Rotten

Jonathan Hoffman — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:00:17 +0100

I have written before about the Pears Foundation. One of the principal philanthropic organisations in the UK Jewish Community funds would-be Israel boycotters.

http://www.thejc.com/blogs/jonathan-hoffman/pears-foundation-funds-israe...

http://www.thejc.com/blogs/jonathan-hoffman/is-antisemitism-institute-pa...

http://www.thejc.com/blogs/jonathan-hoffman/pears-and-forward-thinking-l...

http://217.18.90.33/blogpost/john-ging-invited-pears-not-limmud-taking-t...

And the Institute which it funds (the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism at Birkbeck College, London University) sees nothing wrong with hosting Israel traducers such as Jacqueline Rose who makes antisemitic comparisons between Jews and Nazis (in an interview in 2005, Rose said: “It seems to me that the suffering of a woman on the edge of the pit with her child during the Nazi era, and a Palestinian woman refused access to a hospital through a checkpoint and whose unborn baby dies as a result, is the same”).

Now this wholly inappropriately named Institute is organising (in June) a conference on Boycotts, unbelievably featuring at least two boycotters - John Chalcraft of LSE and Philip Marfleet of University of East London.

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/43726/jewish-leader-threatened-lse-isr...

http://www.pearsinstitute.bbk.ac.uk/events/events-calendar/boycotts-past...

I quote: “ …the conference seeks to create an academic forum to better comprehend the causes and content of boycott movements and to advance understanding of whether and how BDS sits within the debate on contemporary antisemitism”

It is utterly wrong that a so-called “Institute for the Study of Antisemitism” should give a platform to boycotters and to those who believe that a boycott of Israel is either justified or is not antisemitic.

What next, Professor David Feldman of Birkbeck – a Conference on Holocaust Denial, starring David Irving?

St Andrews J Soc Refuses To Be Intimidated by Israel-Demonising Thugs

Jonathan Hoffman — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:14:09 +0100

http://www.thesaint-online.com/2013/04/jewish-charity-ball-goes-ahead-de...

Well done to all the organisers of this event and thanks to the thugs for boosting the proceeds

Postscript:

Press Notice from St Andrews Jewish Society

"I am delighted to announce that the St Andrews Jewish Society was able to hold its charity ball last night in conjunction with AEPi, despite much pressure and intimidation. The event was a resounding success, featuring a jazz band, a ceilidh and a DJ set and raised nearly £1000 for seven worthy charities (detailed on the event website www.matzahball2013.co.uk).

Despite the adverse circumstances of the venue pulling out the day before due to allegedly aggressive phone calls and emails from individuals supporting the SPSC, the Jewish Society was able to secure an alternative venue. The hotel manager has reported the relevant incidences to the police and made the cancellation on the grounds that he could not guarantee the health and safety of his guests and staff.

The security of our guests will always be our primary concern and so we relocated the ball to a secret location. However at no point did we cancel the event and we are thrilled it was such a success, both in terms of the amount raised for charity and the enjoyment of our guests.

We have been overwhelmed by the support received from the Jewish community, the university and the local authorities. In particular we would like to thank the local chaplaincy board, UJS, AEPi, the police and of course the ball guests for their help and support in dealing with this difficult situation. The fact that the protest was organised by people with little or no connection to St Andrews speaks volumes about our town and university, who we are extremely proud of.

The St Andrews Jewish Society will not cave in to intimidation or bullying. We will always protect our members and shall continue to provide events to enrich Jewish life in St Andrews.

Joel Salmon
President of St Andrews Jewish Society"

Alpha Epsilon Pi - ΑΕΠ - is the global Jewish University fraternity. We have over 166 active chapters in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, and Israel with a membership of over 9,000 undergraduates. Alpha Epsilon Pi is a Jewish fraternity, though non-discriminatory and open to all who are willing to espouse its purpose and values.

Although the Upsilon Kappa Colony was only established in 2011, the first outside North America and Israel, the fraternity in its entirety has been running for nearly 100 years, founded in 1913 at NYU.

A Stain On LSE

Jonathan Hoffman — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:50:39 +0100

Demonisation of Israel and falsification of history ran riot at LSE’s Middle East Centre’s ‘discussion’ (for which, read vilification and slander) last night. “The Commentator” has already posted Richard Millett’s clip of John Snow giving credence to the “Jewish Lobby” trope.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3370/anti_zionist_media_bias_here_...

Snow was the ultra-sympathetic ‘chair’ of a panel comprising the spurious historian Ilan Pappe, former Chatham House Research Director Professor Rosemary Hollis, anti-Israel activist Karma Nabulsi and Peter Kosminsky, the director of the fictional TV series masquerading as fact, "The Promise".

http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R1WSG6TOGUG37E

http://www.beyondimages.info/b302.html

Hollis opened by saying that the EU says that Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria is illegal. Not true of course – a French Court has just ruled otherwise:

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/french-appeals-court-rules-is...

Then bizarrely “the US has only recently renewed its commitment to Israel’s security”… nonsense Prof Hollis, the US has always been committed to Israel’s security since the late 1950s.

And later she called Israel’s security operation in Gaza ‘collective punishment’. Yet another so-called ‘academic’ engaged in Middle East Studies who fails to acknowledge (a) Israel’s right to defend itself (b) Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and (c) the truckloads of supplies that go into Gaza every day to supply essentials (provided they cannot be used by the genocidal terror-supporting Hamas rulers to terrorise the citizens of Southern Israel).

Note that Hollis used to be Research Director of the Royal Institute of International Affairs ('Chatham House') which is institutionally anti-Israel and is a centre for former FCO Arabists:

http://cifwatch.com/2009/10/03/review-of-a-state-beyond-the-pale-by-robi...

Then Pappe, the sham historian of whom Benny Morris said:

At best, Ilan Pappe must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest. In truth, he probably merits a place somewhere between the two.

http://www.thejc.com/blogs/jonathan-hoffman/rmt-senior-official-directs-...

Pappe twice compared Israelis to Nazis last night. Not explicitly – he said something like “Israelis are obsessed with race and DNA when they look at whether there is a Jewish majority and there has only been one previous regime which showed such obsession” – but everyone knew who he meant ("You begin to look like your own worst enemy"). Comparing Israeli policies to those of the Nazis is antisemitic, see EUMC Definition:

http://www.european-forum-on-antisemitism.org/working-definition-of-anti...

Pappe said he has just returned from Prague - "a post every Israeli diplomat wants because there is no opposition to Israel". After the Holocaust many of those Jews remaining in Czechoslovakia went to live in Israel. Incredibly the vile Pappe harangued his Czech hosts last week about this, asking them why they had not done more to persuade those Jews to stay!

Kosminsky of course lost no time in displaying his anti-Israel 'badge of honour' by proudly telling the audience that after “The Promise” was shown, “nothing prepared me for the level of vitriol that was going to drop on me from the Zionist Lobby”. The Israel Demonisers can't take criticism, can they... He said that when he lived in Israel to make the film ‘it felt like an apartheid state’ (how would an ‘apartheid state’ permit him to hire the actors he wanted and make a TV series vilifying the country which hosted him?). He said he supports a boycott ‘because they really hate the idea’. Hollis also expressed support for a boycott ‘if it came from civil society’.

Snow’s ‘Jewish Lobby’ demarche led to a discussion about the politics surrounding the creation of Israel. Predictably we got the ‘Israel was created because of the post-Holocaust guilt of the Europeans’ falsehood from Pappe, supported by Hollis who ‘agreed 100%’. The truth is that Zionism far predated the Holocaust (the first Zionist Congress was in 1897) and was a response to centuries of antisemitism. Incredibly Hollis said “the Europeans decided that Judaism was above and beyond a religion”. This displays a jaw-dropping ignorance of the history of Zionism quite apart from being an antisemitic statement: “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” is included in the EUMC Definition. Yet another example of the intellectual corruption of ‘Middle East Studies’ which in truth has become ‘anti-Israel Middle East Studies’.

The first round of Q+A was totally Israel-demonising. Because I shouted ‘shame’ at Pappe’s second Israeli/Nazi comparison, Snow called on me in the second round. My question to Kominsky was as follows:

The ‘Zionist Lobby’ was wrong to vilify you for ‘The Promise’. Because they forgot that Channel 4 is the Channel that distorts the reality of the Middle East - this was the Channel that chose Mahmoud Ahmadimejad to give its ‘alternative’ Christmas message in 2008. They assumed that “The Promise” was a work of fact. But it was a work of fiction. Its theme was that the Jews deserved their own State because of the Holocaust but that they then very quickly began to behave like their tormentors. Israeli Jews were depicted either as living in California-style houses with swimming-pools or as heartless soldiers who mistreat Arabs and protect the most extreme settlers. Other demonising falsehoods were: that all Arab refugees fled in 1948 because of fear of Jews (the truth is that the Mayor of Haifa begged them to stay and that many were told to flee by their leaders, in anticipation that the massing Arab armies would annihilate the Jews and that they could then swiftly return); that the IDF uses children as `human shields'; and that Israel was created purely because of Western guilt about the Holocaust. Does the Panel agree that ‘The Promise’ was a work of fiction?

Then Richard Millett asked how many Israelis would need to die to impose ‘One State’.

Both Millett's and my questions were met with barracking and catcalls from the many anti-Israel members of the audience. ‘Free speech’ of course is alien to them. And John Snow is not much better. He called our questions ‘rhetorical’ and pointedly did not call on the Panel to respond to them. When Richard Millett approached him at the end to ask him about his 'Jewish Lobby' statement, Snow went for Millett's phone.

A disgraceful meeting and a stain on the reputation of LSE – and I speak as an Alumnus. You’d have thought after the Gaddafi Affair they would be more careful….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSE_Gaddafi_links

Postscript: Richard Millett's account here:

http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/jon-snow-lunges-for-my-ph...

Fraser versus UCU

Jonathan Hoffman — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:49:40 +0100

I sent the following letter to the JC earlier this week in response to Jonathan Goldberg's article last week:

http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/ask-qc/106261/why-ronnie-fraser-case-agai...

I could not disagree more with Jonathan Goldberg. He clearly has not read the Equality Act. If he had, he would not suggest that it is as fanciful to argue that Zionism should be a protected characteristic as to argue that supporting Tottenham Hotspur should be a protected characteristic “because so many Jews do”. “Belief” is a protected characteristic in the Act independently of religion. So someone who discriminates against a Zionist is in breach of the Act regardless of the victim’s religion (or absence of a religion). It is up to the judiciary to decide what constitutes a ‘belief’. The fact that there are Christian Zionists and Jewish anti-Zionists is entirely irrelevant.

Mr Goldberg also disapproves of bringing the case because our enemies will say “rich Jews threw huge resources at a failed attempt to stifle free speech”. I am aghast. The day we let antisemites dictate our actions is the day we might just as well lay down and die.

We all (Mr Goldberg included) owe Ronnie an enormous debt of thanks for standing up to the harassment that he received within UCU simply because he had the audacity to challenge lies about Israel. Of course the JLC was right to back the case. Antisemitism must never go unchallenged. If more cases were challenged, then perhaps Judges would be better informed about the bond between Israel and Jews than this Tribunal. This judgment was shamefully ill-informed and I would gladly donate to a fund to challenge it.

Yet Again, British Justice Fails British Jews

Jonathan Hoffman — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 17:30:33 +0100

Ben Cohen has it right, here

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/03/28/how-british-justice-failed-...

Paragraph 156 of the Judgment:

When a rugby player takes the field, he must accept his fair share of minor injuries. Similarly a political activist accepts the risk of being offended or hurt on occasions by things said or done by his opponents (who themselves take on a corresponding risk).

Jaw-dropping. The Tribunal sees resisting antisemitism as akin to participating in a sport with the 'teams' evenly balanced and the contest played according to some kind of rulebook!

What planet do they live on?

Would they dismiss black or Muslim victims of racism - or female victims of sex discrimination - who oppose their treatment as simply voluntary players in a sport?

Paragraph 150:

Belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel ... is not intrinsically part of Jewishness ...

Is it really possible that Judge A M Snelson, Mr A Grant and Lady Sedley could have sat through 20 days of the hearing, done their post-hearing due diligence and STILL failed to appreciate why Israel was created and the centrality of Israel to the Jewish people?

Postscript:

The most obvious flaw in the Judgment: 'Belief' is a Protected Characteristic under the 2010 Equalities Act.

So belief in the right of Jews to have a Jewish state should be a Protected Characteristic.

The Tribunal demonstrably did not 'get' this ... I'd have thought this alone is strong grounds for an Appeal.

Postscripts

Excellent piece by David Hirsh here:

http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/tribunal-in-the-fraser-case...

FROM ZF - RONNIE FRASER STATEMENT

The ZF was very disturbed to read the Judgement in the Fraser versus UCU (University College Union) case. We were particularly distressed to read the assertion that belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel is not intrinsically part of Judaism.

This part of the Judgement shows a deplorable ignorance of the history of the Jewish people and of Israel . Israel is at the centre of the prayers of Jews and before Israel was created in 1948, there was an unbroken Jewish presence in the land for thousands of years. Moreover, Israel was borne out of centuries of antisemitism towards Jews, similar to the antisemitism that Ronnie Fraser endured at the hands of UCU. Israel is the only country in the world grounded in Judaism and for the Tribunal not to recognise that does a profound disservice to the Zionist cause.

Paul Charney, Chairman of The ZF said “The ZF will always fight antisemitism and applauds Ronnie Fraser - a member of our National Council - who represented not just Jews but all right-minded people in the Tribunal hearing“.

Lord Sacks Wows AIPAC With Terrific Speech

Jonathan Hoffman — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 19:36:57 +0000

http://www.chiefrabbi.org/2013/03/12/video-the-will-to-life-chief-rabbi-...

Beloved friends, I’m actually only here to give you a change of accents; I just hope you don’t need simultaneous translation. (Laughter.) But I’m here as part of an English delegation to give you the view from Europe. And the view from Europe is that AIPAC is something out of this world. It is just amazing.

Friends, it reminds me, if I can just you this story, lovely story about Yossi, an Israeli, who opened a falafel bar in Golders Green. Golders Green is the English Brooklyn. And Yossi’s falafel bar was one day visited by the tax inspector who was reading through his books and he was saying, Mr. Yossi, this falafel of yours, this is a kind of Jewish takeaway; am I right?

And Yossi, with a big smile, says, yes. The tax inspector says, Mr. Yossi, I understand where you’ve written down as expenses rent, electricity, materials; but why have you written down under business expenses two trips to Miami and three trips to Tel Aviv? And Yossi, with a big smile, said, that’s easy; we deliver! (Laughter.)

Friends, AIPAC, you deliver. You deliver—(applause)—a strong Israel and a strong Jewish people. May God bless you and may you continue to bless the people in the state of Israel.

Friends, I want to tell you how things are looking like in Europe today. When I was a child, there was one line in the Haggadah that I never understood. [Hebrew.] It was not one alone who stood against us. [Hebrew.] But in every generation they did so. And always as a child I used to say, that belongs to my parents’ generation; not to us; not to us born after the Holocaust. I grew up; in all my life I never experienced a single incident of anti-Semitism until 11 years ago.

Eleven years ago, our youngest daughter, who was studying at a British university, came home in tears. She had been at an anti-globalization rally which quickly turned into a tirade first against America, then against Israel, then against Jews. And with tears in her eyes she said, Dad, they hate us. That is a terrible situation, but it’s reality in Europe today.

In the last two weeks there have been stories about the rise of anti-Semitic incidents in France by 58 percent in a single year; in Belgium, 30 percent; in Denmark, doubled in the space of three years. In England—in France and Italy, English football supporters were attacked not because they were Jews but because they were supporting a football team many of whose supporters happened to be Jews. And I don’t know whether you read this—I’m sure you did—last Wednesday the Turkish president, Mr. Erdogan, called Zionism a “crime against humanity.”

I have to tell you that what we grew up with, “never again,” is beginning to sound like “ever again.” And at the heart of it is hostility to Israel. Of course, not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. But make no mistake what has happened.

In the Middle Ages Jews were hated because of their religion. In the 19th century and the 20th, they were hated because of their race. Today, when it’s no longer done to hate people for their religion or their race, today they are hated because of their state. The reason changes, but the hate stays the same. Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism. (Applause.)

And friends, I’ve come here to tell you that I believe the example of AIPAC must now inform Jewish communities around Europe, because we have to stand up and fight and we have to stand up and win. Friends, anti-Zionism is today rife throughout the world. All our students on campuses know about it. And what is our crime? What is Israel’s crime? It’s that we have chutzpah.

Let me tell you the chutzpah we have. After all, there are 56 Islamic states, there are 125 nations whose majority is Christian, and now Jews want a state of their own. How dare they? And it’s so big. Friends, you know how big Israel is?

There’s a lovely park in a little corner of South Africa. I don’t know if you’ve ever been there. It’s a sort of wild game reserve where you can see lions and giraffes and elephants and hippopotamuses—or hippopotami, depending on whether or not they’ve had a classical education. (Laughter.) It is called the Kruger National Park.

Friends, Israel is the same size as Kruger National Park. How dare they want something that big? Don’t Jews by now know that their role in history is to be scattered, dispersed, homeless, and defenseless? And now they want a space where they can defend themselves. How dare they? Friends, we dare because we are human. We dare because to be denied the right to self-defense is to be treated as less than human. Mr. Erdogan, it is anti-Zionism that is a crime against humanity. (Applause.)

How—how much longer—(applause)—how much longer must the Jewish people have to fight for the right to be? Let me tell you, friends, what is Israel. Elaine and I have just come back; just 10 days ago we were on a series of missions in Israel. And let us remind you what we saw, what you saw, what everyone sees but the world does not see.

We saw school after school and youth village after youth village where children at-risk or children from dysfunctional or abusive families are taken and given the care that will give them hope and a future in life. We saw youth villages where Ethiopian children are given the means suddenly to make that leap across centuries and cultures and find their own excellence. We saw the power of love to transform lives.

We saw hospitals. I don’t know if you’ve been recently to the Rambam Hospital in Haifa. In Haifa, the Rambam Hospital is building the world’s largest underground hospital, proof against bombs, missiles, chemical and biological weapons, so that when Israel’s enemies decide to destroy lives, they will continue saving them.

We saw the new Bar-Ilan Medical Center in Safed, set up to bring the finest possible medical treatment. Who to? Only to Jews? No. To Muslims, to Christians, to Druze villages throughout the Galil, because to be a Jew in Israel means you care for every life; every life is sacred. (Applause.)

We saw the Laniado Hospital in the Netanya, a place I always visit because it moves me almost beyond words. Many of you know the Laniado Hospital was built by the Klausenburger Rebbe, a survivor of Auschwitz who during the Holocaust lost his wife and all 11 children. And there in the camps of death made an oath that if he should ever survive he would dedicate the rest of his life to saving life.

That is what I see in Israel. Every time I visit Israel I find among Israelis, secular or religious, an absolute unswerving dedication to Moshe Rabbenu’s great command Uvacharta Bachayim, “Choose life.” Israel is the sustained defiance of hatred and power in the name of life because we are the people who sanctify life. (Applause.)

Friends, in the last decade the equation has changed. Today the struggle against Israel is no longer just against Israel. Today what is at stake in Israel’s survival is the future of freedom itself. Because make no mistake, this will be the defining battle of the 21st century which will prevail: the will to power with its violence, terror, missiles, and bombs; or the will to life with its hospitals, schools, freedoms, and rights. Believe you me, I have the privilege of knowing.

See, Christians, Hindus, Sheiks, moderate Muslims, and I tell you from my experience Israel is a source of inspiration not just to us but to them as well, because it tells every single person on the face of the earth that you don’t have—a nation doesn’t have to be large to be great. A nation doesn’t have to be rich in natural resources to prosper.

Israel has been surrounded by enemies and yet it has shown that even so you can still be a democracy, still have a free press, still have an independent judiciary. Israel is the only country in the Middle East where a Palestinian can stand up on national television and criticize the government and the next day still be a free human being. (Applause.)

Israel is an inspiration to the world. And since we spend a certain amount of our time traveling around the world, we see this only too richly. I still have—because once upon a time Hong Kong had a little bit to do the—with the British Empire. We lost Hong Kong. We lost the Empire Visca Maton [ph]. I’m not so pleased about you lot either; 1776, don’t think we’ve forgotten. But still. (Laughter.)

And so it was one of my visits to Hong Kong after the handover, I went to see Mr. Tung Chee Hwa, the Beijing appointment as head of Hong Kong. And I tell you this man, this Chinese appointment, was a lover of Jews and Judaism and Israel. He said to me, you know, your people and my people are very old people. You’ve been around 6,000 years; we’ve been around 5,000 years. Tell me, I always wanted to know, what did you do for the first thousand years before you had Kosher Chinese takeaways? (Laughter.)

I said, Mr. Tung, you want to know what we did for the first thousand years? We complained about the food. (Laughter.) And Mr. Tung said to me, I want to go and visit Israel because I see that as the model of development for here. And he did go two or three months later and came back absolutely inspired. And I went straight to the Israeli ambassador in London and said, look how the world has changed. There was a time when Israel dreamed about being the Hong Kong of the Middle East; today Hong Kong dreams, halevai, we should be the Israel of the Far East. (Applause.)

Friends, we have people who do strange things in Britain. Three years ago, I don’t know if you read this in the papers, the British atheists paid a fortune for London buses to carry a logo saying “probably—” puh-puh-puh “– there is no god.” Did you read about this? Actually all the London buses, “There’s probably no god.”

So I wrote about this. You know, that’s a very interesting word, “probably.” After all, how probable is it that the universe should exist? How probable is it that life should exist? How probable is it that out of all the 3 million life forms on the—on the planet Earth, only one, us, is capable of asking the question “why”? Nothing interesting is remotely probable.

And then I said, think about the Jewish people. How probably is it that one man, Abraham, who commanded no empire, ordered no army, performed no miracle, delivered no prophecy, should today without doubt be the most influential man who ever lived, who’s claimed as the spiritual ancestor by 2.4 billion Christians, 1.6 billion Muslims, and most of you in the room today? (Laughter.)

How probable is it that this tiny people, the Jewish people, numbering less than one-fifth of 1 percent of the population of the world, should have outlived—as you just heard—the world’s greatest empires—the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans—every empire that ever stood up to destroy us, they are being consigned to history and still we stand and sing “Am Yisrael Chai”?

How likely is it—(applause)—that after 2,000 years of exile our people should have come back to our land and there in—having stood eyeball to eyeball in Auschwitz a mere three years earlier, eyeball to eyeball with the Angel of Death, in 1948 said, despite the worst crime of man against man, lo amut kiechyeh—I will not die but I will live? Israel is the greatest collective affirmation of life in the whole of Jewish history. (Applause.)

Friends, Judaism is the defeat of probability by the power of possibility. And nowhere will you see the power of possibility more than in the state of Israel today. Israel has taken a barren land and made it bloom again. Israel has taken an ancient language, the language of the Bible, and make it speak again. Israel has taken the West’s oldest faith and made it young again. Israel has taken a shattered nation and make it live again.

Friends, let us not rest until Israel’s light shines throughout the world, the world’s great symbol of life and hope. Amen. (Applause.)

Yachad's ZF application: A cynical publicity stunt

Jonathan Hoffman — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 23:02:45 +0000

At the age of about 10 I was addicted to the ‘Just William’ stories written by Richmal Crompton. William Brown is an eleven-year-old boy, eternally scruffy and frowning. William and his friends (Ginger, Henry and Douglas) call themselves “The Outlaws”, and meet at the old barn in Farmer Jenks' field, with William being the leader of the gang.

In those stories there’s a girl called Violet Elizabeth Bott. She’s the lisping, spoiled daughter of the local nouveau riche millionaire. She’s dying to be a member of the gang and William reluctantly endures her company in order to prevent her carrying out her constant threat of

"I'll thcream and thcream 'till I'm thick"

Yachad’s response to the ZF’s decision not to grant it membership represented the “Violet Elizabeth Bott” manoeuvre, except instead of "I'll thcream and thcream 'till I'm thick" we’ve had “I’ll thcream and I’ll tweet and I’ll blog and I’ll publicise ‘till I’m thick”. What seems increasingly obvious is that the application to join the ZF was a carefully calculated ‘win-win’ ploy, even though Yachad had little expectation that it would be accepted.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/01/why-the-u-k-zionist-fed...

Ms Weisfeld admits here that the application was a long shot: “it’s hardly a surprise” (she writes) that Yachad was rejected. If she thought that then why did she waste ZF volunteers’ time by applying, if it was not a PR stunt?

If it was rejected, she fully intended to use it as a hook to hang a publicity campaign on. Hence the full page adverts in Friday’s JC and Jewish News (which by the way don’t come cheap, my guess is north of £3500 in total). Hence the public meeting this week. Hence the ludicrous accusations that the ZF is acting as the “Zionist police” (!). The reality is that this publicity ploy was utterly cynical and self-serving. In order that Yachad should have publicity – and knowing the response would in all likelihood be “no” - Ms Weisfeld thought nothing of imposing significant extra work on ZF volunteers in assessing Yachad’s application.

Haaretz and JC journalist Anshel Pfeffer makes the same point in Haaretz:

…clever but cynical PR stunt by a start-up group …. I suspect that Yachad's shrewd director Hannah Weisfeld understood this, and applied for her organization to be recognized by the Zionist Federation assuming it would be turned down, and knowing it would provoke a long-overdue debate. A canny ploy and, judging from the publicity it has generated, a successful one. However, it has everything to do with communal politics and little to do with the lives and beliefs of Israelis and Zionists.

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/jerusalem-babylon/the-empty-debate-on-zio...

The problem with “thcreaming and thcreaming” is that the noise drowns out the facts.

So we get the absurd suggestion (in her Daily Beast article, link above) from Ms Weisfeld that the ZF National Council was somehow trying to ensure that Yachad “kept quiet when it came to Israel”. Anyone who follows Twitter, reads the JC or attends meetings in London will know that if anything it is those who oppose the likes of Yachad who are drowned out by the incessant noise. Then Ms Weisfeld suggests that “it’s best the Zionist Federation does not purport to speak on behalf of the Jewish Community when it comes to matters relating to Israel”. Wrong again. The ZF does not purport to speak "on behalf of the Jewish Community" (maybe it did once - eg at the time the Balfour Declaration was addressed to it - but it certainly does not today). In fact on the Board of Deputies I have more than once heard the ZF referred to pejoratively as “a fringe organisation”. And Ms Weisfeld has clearly not been to many ZF meetings. If she had, she would realise that the ZF’s reach extends far beyond the Jewish Community. “Christian Friends of Israel”, for example, is a magnificent and always welcome supporter of the ZF.

Ms Weisfeld suggests that Yachad represents a ‘large number of Anglo-Jews’. She is over-egging her pudding. At Limmud – hardly noted for a preponderance of ‘hawks’ - the Jerusalem Post reported that Yachad’s arguments “drew critical remarks from a sceptical audience, with some listeners arguing such concessions would encourage terrorism.”

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=297128

What has been rather lost in all the brouhaha is the case against Yachad. According to the ZF Constitution,new applicants such as Yachad must be assessed for conformity with the Jerusalem Programme (JP).

Yachad CLAIMS to be “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace”. Words are cheap – anyone can mouth platitudes. We had to decide if - by its daily deeds, not its strapline - Yachad really works to ensure Israel’s security and to foster the unity of the Jewish People – as the JP requires

I can only speak for myself. I looked at the evidence and concluded that the answer was ‘no’.

Example 1: Yachad supported the UN upgrade to Palestinian status which was opposed by Israel and other western countries (Canada, Czech Republic, United States; and Australia, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, UK abstained). Every truly pro-Israel organisation believes that negotiations between the two sides are the only way forward. By now giving the Palestinians a route to the International Court and by giving them increased access to the UN with its inbuilt majority against Israel, Yachad’s decision poses a threat to Israel’s security – as does its advocacy of the rapid creation of a Palestinian State.

Example 2: Yachad recently hosted the US columnist Peter Beinart by video. Beinart supports a boycott of goods from Judea and Samaria . The ZF would never host a speaker who advocates a boycott. This too poses an economic and political threat to Israel ’s security. Yachad's own position on boycotts is far from clear. In meetings (eg at SOAS) Ms Weisfeld has equivocated.

Example 3: Yachad organises tours of Judea and Samaria for young people visiting Israel. Reportedly the guides only tell one side of the story. Often the guides are from 'Breaking the Silence', a tiny group of dissident IDF veterans who never give their names when slandering the IDF.

Example 4: Yachad’s prevailing wisdom is that the settlements are 'illegal'. They are not. Yachad makes little or no effort to explain how Hamas targets Israeli civilians. They portray the Security Fence as something which harms the Palestinians. They are silent when it comes to the number of Israeli lives it has saved by stopping suicide bombers – lives of both Jews and others.

Example 5: Yachad supports separate labelling of goods from Judea/Samaria. The view of most if not all anti-boycott activists is to oppose separate labelling, as the slippery slope to a partial and a full boycott.

Example 6: Yachad protested about the eviction of an Arab family by the name of Sumarin from Silwan. Ms Weisfeld even tipped off a Guardian journalist about it via Twitter. Haaretz (13 May 2012) reported that

Officials in Zionist organisations and the Israeli Embassy were especially incensed by a tweet Yachad sent to foreign journalists, including the Guardian's correspondent in Jerusalem, Harriet Sherwood,drawing their attention to the eviction notice. The organisation was accused of "stoking anti-Israel feelings.

The Sumarin eviction was perfectly legal. To claim otherwise is to challenge the Israeli judicial system – another threat to the security of Israel.

http://blogs.jpost.com/content/aiding-enemy-yachad-uk-palestinian-embass...

As Samuel Hayek, chairman of the JNF noted:

We are disappointed that Yachad has thought it prudent to describe the outcome of this court case as proof of Israel's 'policy of Judaizing Jerusalem'. This is a lie that gives a great deal of legitimacy to those who seek to demonise the state of Israel and dehumanise the Jewish people. ... The actual facts of the case paint a rather different picture to the demagogic interpretation provided by Yachad.

Example 7: According to the blog of Richard Millett (who was present at JSoc event at UCL on 31 October 2011

She (Ms Weisfield) also fully endorsed two organisations which are major demonisers of Israel; Israeli human rights organisation Yesh Din and the website +972 Magazine.

Example 8: When Israel’s Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman came to London, Yachad was reportedly behind the protests against him. To treat a senior Israeli Minister in this manner is hardly the action of a “pro-Israel organisation”. In fact the ZF spoke out against this at the time.

Given this evidence, I concluded that Yachad did not conform to the JP and moreover that admitting it to the ZF would be divisive. The ZF’s tradition is to support Israel, not oppose it, and given the shrillness of the anti-Israel voices, that is challenging enough - without having to fight internal opposition as well.

If Yachad is genuine about wanting to join the ZF (as opposed to only seeking publicity from a refusal) then it will be willing to make the necessary policy changes. Let’s see Yachad defending Israel in the Guardian and writing to the BBC. Let’s see Yachad demonstrating to counter the hate when Israeli cultural groups come to London. Then their claim to be “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace” might be somewhat less hollow. (Friday’s JC says Yachad is not prepared to ‘beg to be let in’ - which again suggests the application was merely a ploy to cynically exploit the ZF for publicity).

Postscript:

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/leader/102867/zf-damages-us-all

The JC Editorial last week was ludicrous and shameful. The ZF has never said either that Yachad is ‘not Zionist” or that it is. It’s simply not the relevant question. The relevant question is “does Yachad in deed as well as words support the Jerusalem Programme?” And to compare Galloway’s refusal to debate with an Israeli student with the ZF’s refusal to have Yachad as a member must rank as the worst example of false moral equivalence of the millennium. And far from “damaging its reputation”, the ZF’s decision has been universally applauded by the genuine Israel activists who have contacted me and others (the two members of the JLC quoted in the JC’s front page article last week are not in my book “genuine Israel activists”)

The speech that sent Galloway packing...

Jonathan Hoffman — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:32:18 +0000

I am proud to be the first (I believe) to publish the speech by Oxford student Eylon Aslan-Levy that sent George Galloway on his bike. The motion was that Israel should withdraw immediately from the West Bank. Galloway had proposed, Aslan-Levy was opposing.

Mr Speaker, thank you for inviting me here tonight.

To the audience – thank you for coming.

Mr Galloway –

I was disappointed, but not surprised, to learn that you had promised the press that you would “annihilate” me—

[Here Galloway interrupts and accuses me of libelling him for repeating a statement made to the Oxford Student Newspaper: http://oxfordstudent.com/2013/02/14/galloway-says-he-will-annihilate/]

Let me make it clear where I stand. This debate is not about whether Israel should withdraw from most of the West Bank upon the signing of a treaty that would guarantee the Jewish and Palestinian nations peace and prosperity within the safe and secure borders of their respective states.

That is a point of consensus in Israel. I believe that the Occupation must end. I am devastated when Israelis are murdered in suicide bombings and rocket attacks; and I am deeply distressed by heavy price that the Palestinians have paid for this conflict, including the tragic loss of innocent life. I want peace and I want it now.

This debate, however, is about whether Israel should withdraw immediately. Overnight. Unilaterally. Without any guarantees from the Palestinians to match such dramatic concessions by calling an end to this century-old conflict. The burden on the proposition today is to make precisely that case.

So this debate is not about who loves justice or freedom more. It’s not about who has suffered more. It’s not about who is good and who is bad, who is right, who is wrong. So let’s not let this debate descend into a parody of itself.

An immediate withdrawal denies Israelis and Palestinians the two essential goods that a peace treaty would secure: firstly, a framework for safety, security and cooperation; secondly, binding promises by each party to irrevocably terminate all claims or states of belligerency against the other. To forego the one chance to sign for peace on the dotted line would leave the region vulnerable, insecure, and in a perpetual state of war.

This is the lesson from the disengagement from Gaza in 2005, which I supported – out of the same misguided faith that the cards were in Israel’s hands. Israel uprooted over 8,000 settlers and evacuated the military – but without a pledge from the Palestinians not to fire rockets at Israeli towns over the very border to which Israel had just withdrawn. We wanted peace: we got war. We mustn’t make the same mistake again.

My first point: only a peace treaty can provide a framework for enduring peace and security—

[Here Galloway interrupts for a second time, asking: “You said ‘we’. Are you Israeli?”]

http://www.cherwell.org/cherwelltv/news/2013/02/20/george-galloway-in-an...

After the debate Aslan-Levy said that "I am appalled that an MP would storm out of a debate with me for no reason other than my heritage.

"To refuse to talk to someone just because of their nationality is pure racism, and totally unacceptable for a member of parliament."

Many would agree and would ask if there has ever been more blatant racism at a British University...

UPDATE 1 The Times editorial has it right:

Lack of Respect

George Galloway’s Oxford University walkout was childish attention seeking

Given his willingness to talk to Saddam Hussein and congratulate the murderous dictator on his ‘indefatigability’, and to present programmes on the Iranian state-run Press TV, one might be forgiven for thinking that George Galloway would talk to anyone. But now we learn that Mr Galloway is rather picky. It is just that in picking, he prefers dictators.

This insight was provided by Mr Galloway’s behaviour on Wednesday when attending a debate at Christ Church College, Oxford. Upon learning during Eyon Aslan-Levy’s speech that his interlocutor was an Israeli (actually someone born in London with joint British-Israeli citizenship), he got up and walked out. “I don’t debate with Israelis,” he said.

It is tempting to take Mr Galloway as seriously as he takes himself, hard though that feat would be. One might point out that if Yasser Arafat, of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, or President Anwar Sadat, of Egypt, had adopted Mr Galloway’s stance it would have made it difficult to discuss peace. And a walk out on a student’s speech makes a mockery of calling his party Respect.

However, to dignify his display by deploying arguments against it is to flatter the MP. The truth is that Mr Galloway’s abrupt departure was the childish act of an attention-seeker. He has become a circus sideshow: roll up, roll up to be entertained by his next piece of eccentric unreason.

The organisers of the Oxford meeting were “disappointed” that as a result of the MP’s departure “a possibly fruitful discussion was prematurely ended”. It was not Mr Galloway’s departure that made fruitful discussion impossible. It was his arrival.

UPDATE 2

Iain Dale on the former PressTV Editor who defended Galloway on LBC

http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2013/02/21/it-shouldn-t-happen-to-a-radio-...

"A clueless, anti-semitic bigot"

What happened inside Middlesex University's Closed Doors ...

Jonathan Hoffman — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:22:53 +0000

http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/middlesex-university-bans...

On Tuesday 5 February Middlesex University hosted a meeting with three speakers notorious for animosity towards Israel and association with antisemites. The meeting was closed to concerned members of the public. An account of what happened has found its way into my hands. Reading the tirade of antisemitism - including Booth's revolting slanders that Israelis glorify in Palestinian deaths and loot the bodies of dead Palestinians - it's no wonder that the University Vice Chancellor Prof Michael Driscoll was so anxious to keep the meeting secret.

http://www.mdx.ac.uk/aboutus/management/Executive/index.aspx

As Mark Gardner of the CST says in the Jewish Telegraph:

Middlesex University appear to think they have something to hide regarding this meeting. If that is the case, then it should have been cancelled.

John Rees:

“What Israel represents? Uniquely founded on driven by terror from homes, land to found that state”
“State depends of dispossession of hundreds and thousands of Palestinians. Taken place in every decade of its existence. It drives Palestinians from their land. Which is theirs by right. It’s a stolen state on stolen land, other people belongings”
“Making it illegal and illegitimate, in its current form”
“Biggest recipient of military & civilian aid. Can by US military aid to use weapons and armaments. This is a REALLY a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP”
“Israel would not exist without USA”
“Exclusions and oppression of Palestinian people”
“USA is using Israel not to just suppress Palestinians, it's about suppressing the entire ARAB world”
“Israel is founded on stolen land, driven by terror this founded the state of Israel….and this is the case to hundreds of thousands of people”
“Israel relies on illegal occupation, this is justice enough to destroy Israel”
“This state exists on stolen land, It's illegal and illegitimate to exist, this is justice enough to destroy Israel…”
“State of Israel – special relationship with USA – state is police dog”
“Israeli state has broken more UN resolutions than Sadam Hussein’s Iraq”
“We exist on this side; they….Zionists exist on the other”
“Many Jews dislike the state of Israel, as much as they dislike the Palestinians”
“The [Jewish] state exist to hold down people in the region. Quote from William Hague: There is a cold war in the Middle East. Our allies are Israel, the UK, USA and the opposition Iran, Hammas”
“There will never be freedom or justice whilst Israel exists”
“The Israeli government is addicted to power.…..We must remove the state”
“Israeli State is based on Apartheid. We should replace it as it was with Jews, Muslims and Christians living together, not as tools of imperialist states”

Asghar Bukhari:

Read his speech. He was highly offensive to Muslims, strangely. A number in the audience commented on this. His case was Muslims are not doing enough to fight Zionist [jewish] infiltration.
“We must stand up and fight” [against Jewish, Zionist infiltration]

Lauren Booth

[In response to a pro-Israel protester outside the room shouting "Shame On You"]: “You haven’t even heard it yet, its going to be much better then the destruction of Israel…..”
“We must force it [Israel] to cease to exist, in its current form”
“Gaza is a concentration camp, Israel is promoting ethnic cleansing”
“We are fighting an information block, if they knew the whole world would march there [Israel] tomorrow”
She told unsubstantiated stories of a list of teenage boys claiming that unprovoked, they had been shot with multiple wounds by the IDF
“Settlers, Europeans, French, Russians, Americans, British with a monetary incentive settle In Palestinian fields. Not happy enough with that, Israelis destroy tents, Israelis destroy Palestinian houses”
“Palestinian children are abused, [sexual insinuation], as young as 12 years are interrogated [torture insinuation] around 5-700 per year are put in prison for no reason”
“Make no mistake, he knows, he doesn’t care, they [Jews] approve of these deaths. They [Jews] like it this way; they [Jews] want it to stay that way”
She explained about "Gaza Flu": “things dropped by Israel, clogs their throat, sinusess and it makes the children sick [she insinuates biochemical warfare] the children produce green snot”
“Israelis support deaths, they like it, and they want it to stay that way”
“they go in with tanks, they shoot, they shoot those that leave and then they LOOT THE DEAD BODIES”
“Israeli officers beat women, officers told her to strip off her clothes in front of interrogators, when she refused, they beat her“
“child prisoners are blindfolded, and abused”

How shocking that such extremist brainwashing can be allowed to happen at a British university - and doubly shocking that it can be allowed to happen behind closed doors.....
UPDATE 1: Required reading for Prof Driscoll:

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/02/08/bds-and-the-jewish-studies-trap/

Board of Deputies and David Ward MP

Jonathan Hoffman — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:49:55 +0000

At the last Board of Deputies meeting I suggested that until the LibDems deal properly with David Ward MP, decent people should have nothing to do with the LibDems and should not vote for them. The next speaker was Jonathan Davies who is a Vice Chair of LibDem Friends of Israel. He accused me of being 'party political'.

Nothing is further from the truth.

I am on record as speaking out against antisemitic remarks from members of all three Parties.

Mr Davies' comment was a personal attack and as such I was entitled (Standing Order 24) to raise a Point of Order. But the President - completely incorrectly - refused to allow me to do this. I asked Mr Davies to apologise but he refused.

Mr Davies' attempt to belittle the gravity of the Ward comment by accusing me of making a 'party political' point speaks volumes about the failure of the LibDems to deal adequately with Ward's antisemitic comment.

Shlomo's Away With The Fairies

Jonathan Hoffman — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:41:43 +0000

http://cifwatch.com/2009/11/10/shlomo-the-sandlout/

The good news is that Shlomo Sand (at the Frontline Club in London on Tuesday night) has become so extreme that he will convince no-one. Only a hardened antisemite could possibly find him credible, and that only because he appears to give that prejudice an intellectual underpinning.

Maybe it was Simon Schama's ridicule that pushed him to the extreme:

http://www.jewlicious.com/2009/11/shlomo-sand-ridiculed-by-historian-sim...

When he was a younger academic Sand was open about the fact that he grew up in the Communist Party and viewed himself as a Marxist. He had no criticisms of Stalinism.

http://www.history.qmul.ac.uk/staff/sassoond.html

He was introduced by Donald Sassoon. You can see why he was chosen. He talks about the 'failure of Zionism' (because more Jews live outside than inside Israel!) and says that Israel "is the land of the poor Jews" because most Egyptian Jews (his family was Egyptian) did not go there. I reminded him that Israel is an OECD member and has more companies on NASDAQ than any other nation outside the USA.

Then to Shlomo Sand. Sand said Jews consider themselves a 'people' for purely selfish reasons - they want to own land and a people can own land whereas a religion cannot. Zionism and Judaism are opposed, he says. He claims there are no mentions of Israel in the Bible and there was no exodus of Jews after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. In the 19th Century, he says, Rabbis opposed Zionism, that's why the First Zionist Congress had to be in Basel and not Munich. He claims that the Talmud forbids Jews to go to Palestine; that "political public antisemitism" has disappeared; and that 'secular' Jews will diappear too because they define themselves by the Shoah and by antisemitism (cue for plug for next book which will be called "The Invention of the Secular Jew"). He calls Israel a racist state.

Fortunately Sand's lies were exposed by a number of good questioners. The lies can be seen in this link:

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/latest-nonsense-from-shlomo-s...

I flicked through Sand's book. One of the puffs he cites in the front is a quote from Rabbi Jonathan Wittenberg:

I am one of many Jews who would agree with Sand that a decisive factor in the future of Israel will be its capacity to be far more attentive to the narratives and rights of its Palestinian and other non-Jewish citizens

But of course he omits the next part of Rabbi Wittenberg's article (it's from his Guardian review of Sand's earlier book):

But the book is a great disappointment. Its sweeping attempt to take apart the entire history of the Jewish people from its origins to present day Israel and prove it to be a wilful fabrication is marred by tendentious premises, the misreading of key events and the ignoring of central texts and institutions.

I told Rabbi Wittenberg that his Guardian article had been selectively used to plug Sand's book. He said:

I gave the last book a very negative review and certainly would not wish the partial and out-of-context quote at the front of the new book to imply any endorsement whatsoever. I have not read the new book and have no intention of doing so

That's Sand all over: an academic fraud who cherrypicks sources that he pretends proves his point and even takes them out of context when it suits him.....

UPDATE: Excellent piece by Richard Millett on Sand's SOAS talk on Wednesday night:

http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/shlomo-sand-at-soas-israe...

Oxford Union Triumph - Near 40% say "Israel Force for Good in Middle East"

Jonathan Hoffman — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 12:50:11 +0000

The motion ‘This House Believes That Israel is a Force For Good in the Middle East’ was defeated 132-208 at the Oxford Union Debating Society last night. It was a good debate with none of the drama that has preceded some other Israel debates at the Union. For example in 2007 most of the external speakers pulled out after Norman Finkelstein was disinvited (the motion was “This House Believes that One State is the Only Solution to the Israel Palestine Conflict” and Finkelstein bizarrely was invited to speak against the motion). It was clear from the quality of the debate that a lot of hard work had gone into the evening by Union President Maria Rioumine and her colleagues.

http://www.thejc.com/97741/the-hebrew-speaking-head-oxford-union

For the motion were Ella Robertson, a student at Balliol; Alan Mendoza (Director, Henry Jackson Society, replacing Stephen Pollard at very short notice), Richard Perle (Asst Sec of Defence under President Reagan), and Lord David Trimble (Co-founder of Friends of Israel Initiative and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate for helping secure peace in N Ireland). Against were Ghada Karmi, Baroness Jenny Tonge, Anna Baltzer (a pro-Palestinian campaigner in the US) and Peter Tatchell.

It’s well nigh impossible to win an Israel debate at a British University so to achieve nearly 40% of the vote is a great achievement. And the speakers for the motion were good. Ella Robertson spoke about Israel’s contribution to stability in the region, to democracy and liberalism and to the economy of the Middle East. Alan Mendoza pointed out that Israel produces weapons of peace eg Iron Dome which was possibly the main reason why the Israeli government did not feel obliged to commit ground forces in Operation Pillar of Defence last year. He contrasted Israel’s liberalism with Gaza where students have recently been forced to wear Islamic dress. Richard Perle suggested that the criticism from the opposition speakers was not criticism of Israel per se but criticism of Israel’s right to defend itself. Israel’s non-aggressive nuclear policy was proved by the fact that Saudi Arabia and Egypt would want a nuclear capability if Iran had one but they have never wanted one to counter Israel’s assumed nuclear capability.

Lord Trimble spoke of his own experience on the Turkel Committee. Cabinet papers had been made available to the Committee and moreover he had seen that all orders placed with Israeli coordinators by merchants in Gaza had been fulfilled. He said that Palestinian negotiators had failed even to respond to Olmert’s peace offer. If Israel was genuinely bent on enlarging its territory – as the opposition claimed - then it would have annexed Judea and Samaria years ago. When asked if they wanted to join a Palestinian State, Israeli Arabs expressed an overwhelming desire to stay in Israel.

From the opponents of the Motion came the usual fallacies:

From Ghada Karmi

-that the Haganah terrorised Arabs into fleeing in 1948 (wrong – as Efraim Karsh has shown, the majority of the Arab refugees did not flee in response to Jewish forces – the Mayor of Haifa even pleaded with them to stay);

-that Israel has ‘caused four wars’!;

-that Israel takes 80% of the water of Judea and Samaria – not true;

From a remarkably restrained Jenny Tonge

-that Islamic extremism is caused by Israel - nonsense, the Muslim Brotherhood – the first extremist organisation – was founded in 1930

Peter Tatchell showed three maps which purported to show that Israel had ‘grabbed land’ but in fact showed that Israel had successfully defended itself three times and had successively moved into more defensible areas. And he said “Jews deserve a homeland but not at the expense of the indigenous people” – but the fact is that Jews are an ‘indigenous people’ with practically unbroken presence near Jerusalem for thousands of years.

From Anna Baltzer we got the ‘apartheid’ comparison – she cited some South African Commission which concluded that Israel practises so-called ‘apartheid’. This of course is The Big Lie – otherwise why would most Israeli Arabs say that they would prefer to live in Israel than in a Palestinian State?

Omar Shweiki, a Palestinian, also spoke with passion against the motion from the floor.

http://www.cherwell.org/news/2008/11/21/protests-over-israeli-presidents...

Unfortunately there is not time in these debates to unpick some of the falsehoods. It is that - plus media bias plus the naïve perception of the Palestinians as ‘underdogs – which make motions like these so hard to win, however good the pro-Israel speakers.

But to get nearly 40% support for Israel at a British university in this day and age is a triumph.

Nick Clegg Equivocates about David Ward MP's Antisemitic Comment

Jonathan Hoffman — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:30:16 +0000

Yesterday Jonathan Arkush (Board of Deputies’ VP and Chair of the Defence Division) said:

We note that David Ward MP has been censured by the Liberal Democrats. However, the Board regards this as wholly inadequate. The whip should have been withdrawn and he should have been warned that he risked being expelled from the party. The Board further notes that Mr Ward’s offensive statement remains on his website, which hardly inspires confidence in the sincerity of his apology.

I called Nick Clegg on LBC this morning (13.58 on the mp3 file) to ask why David Ward MP (Bradford East) has not lost the Whip and why this antisemitic comment is still on his website:

Having visited Auschwitz twice - once with my family and once with local schools - I am saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/call-clegg-listen-again-free-podcast-65909

After Mr Clegg said Ward had been 'given a yellow card' (he has been 'censured') Nick Ferrari asked whether that was enough and whether he should be "suspended for a while".

Mr Clegg responded:

For Jonathan it is clearly not enough. For other people, would you believe they're saying, we've gone too far in reprimanding him, which I personally strongly ...

Then Nick Ferarri asked whether Mr Clegg had had any personal contact with Ward since the antisemitic comment - the response was "no".

Let's summarise:

1. The comment remains on Ward's website and he remains a LibDem MP
2. Nick Clegg did not feel it was important enough to speak to Ward
3. Nick Clegg is prepared to defend the LibDems' (in)action by saying that 'some people think we've gone too far in reprimanding him'

Of course none of these facts could possibly influence Mr Clegg:
- Ward only has a tiny majority of just 365
- 24.3% of the population of the constituency is Muslim
- in the 2010 election, MPAC UK campaigned heavily for him against the Labour incumbent:
http://www.mpacuk.org/story/160410/press-release-mpacuk-bradford-take-te...

Draw your own conclusions about the willingness of the LibDem leadership to tolerate racist comments against Jews from Party MPs

UPDATE:

Excellent pieces in the Times (paywall) by Giles Coren and in the Spectator by Hugo Rifkind:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/hugo-rifkind/8835181/gerald-scarfe...

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/gilescoren/article36757...

Steve Bell defends Scarfe cartoon on BBC

Jonathan Hoffman — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:43:15 +0000

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21241711

He's debating today with JC Editor Stephen Pollard .. who starts by acknowledging Rupert Murdoch's apology ...

Bell: "Apologising for this cartoon - for once it wasn't a bad cartoon - I think Stephen Pollard invokes terms like "the blood libel" and kind of "genocidal hate rage".... he's attributing this to a cartoon which is actually ... it's sort of like a mirror image of the cartoon Scarfe did the week before ... President Assad clutching the head of a baby ... not a squeak about that ...

"The problem with the State of Israel and the Zionist Lobby is that they never acknowledge the crime of ethnic cleansing upon which the State was founded .. if you use the term 'blood libel' as loosely and ridiculously as that"

Stephen Pollard points out that the blood libel is used at least weekly in the Middle East Press ..

Bell goes on:

"Extraneous notions like 'blood libel' are dropped in and sensitivities are talked up .. the very word 'antisemitic' becomes devalued .. 'they' throw it around with such abandon, if there really is antisemitism it's actually getting ignored..."

I must have missed the programme when Steve Bell defended the Mohammed cartoons... Did anyone else hear it?

http://hurryupharry.org/2013/01/29/steve-bell-and-original-sin/

As Harrys Place says, Bell has 'form' ...

UPDATE:

Some people are suggesting the cartoon is not antisemitic. They need to read the EUMC Definition. "Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews" is antisemitic. It doesn't have to be "Jews" plural. To make a stereotypical (eg blood libel) allegation about a single Jew violates the Definition -- in particular if that "single Jew" is the Prime Minister of the world's only Jewish State.

UPDATE 2: So true - from blogger Brian of London in Israel:

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/anyone-want-to-kill-a-cartoonist/

So after this enraging cartoon let us review what Jews didn’t do:

* The cartoonist was not forced into hiding by numerous credible and widely publicised death threats from recognised religious leaders of any Jewish communities let alone all of them.
* Anybody defending the artist or republishing his work did not scurry off to an undisclosed but taxpayer funded safe house with an armed security detail (no gun control for protecting celebrities of course).
* The UK government was not directly called upon to punish the cartoonist and newspaper, preferably with harsh sentences like death or horrible death.
* Nobody broke into the cartoonist’s home with an axe.
* The office of the publisher and the newspaper were not threatened, picketed, blown up, fire bombed or sent mail bombs.
* Angry mobs of incensed Jews and Israelis did not gather outside or storm and occupy UK embassies or burn effigies of Rupert Murdoch or Gerald Scarfe.
* No diplomats were murdered, abducted or forced to eat more Ferrero Rocher chocolates than they wished.
* Israel did not respond by summoning the UK’s ambassador to answer for the actions of an independent newspaper in the UK.

Libdem MP's antisemitic message re Holocaust

Jonathan Hoffman — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:29:30 +0000

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2567/british_member_of_parliament_...

http://blog.thecst.org.uk/?p=4068

David Ward MP (Bradford East, 24.3% of whose population is Muslim) gave the following message to the magazine "Asian Image" after signing the HET's Memorial Book in the House of Commons

http://www.asianimage.co.uk/news/10182527.MP_condemns_treatment_of_Pales...

I am saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza.

This is a disgusting antisemitic comment (the EUMC Definition of Antisemitism says it's antisemitic to "Draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis").

http://www.european-forum-on-antisemitism.org/working-definition-of-anti...

I have written to Nick Clegg asking for the Whip to be withdrawn from Ward and asking for a public denunciation of Ward's antisemitic and highly insensitive statement.

UPDATE: The Liberal Democrat party has denounced Ward's statements. They told the Guido Fawkes blog: “This is a matter we take extremely seriously. The Liberal Democrats deeply regret and condemn the statement issued by David Ward and his use of language which is unacceptable.”

UPDATE 2: David Ward has removed the offending statement from his website

UPDATE 3: It's back with a defiant message ... surely he will lose the Whip when he sees the Whips' office on Monday!

http://davidward.org.uk/en/article/2013/654457/bradford-mp-condemns-isra...

EMAIL NICK CLEGG NOW!

https://www.facebook.com/SupportDavidWardForStandingUpForPalestine

Nick Clegg is getting lots of emails of support for Ward. Please email Nick Clegg to reinforce the message: WARD MUST LOSE THE LIBDEM WHIP JUST LIKE JENNY TONGE

https://www.libdems.org.uk/contact.aspx

Contact Nick Clegg here - select 'Nick Clegg' from the dropdown menu

UPDATE 4:

LibDem Chief Whip's letter of apology to Karen Pollock of HET (HT Matthew Harris):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/122300465/ChiefWhipLetter

UPDATE 5:

Superb piece by Melanie Phillips on why Ward is only a symptom of the UK's sickness:

http://www.melaniephillips.com/britains-national-sickness

The full, monstrous obscenity of both Ward’s remarks and the widespread British attitude to which he has given voice is no less than this: accusing the people who were the victims of genocide entirely falsely of committing crimes against humanity -- simply because they are trying to defend themselves from being wiped out again by those for whom the Holocaust is unfinished business. Self-defence against extermination is now considered a crime against humanity.

UPDATE 6:

He has been 'censured' and the offensive comment is still on his website

This is totally inadequate. He must lose the Whip and the comment must be removed.

Nick Clegg - Prove that you have Zero Tolerance for antisemitism in your Party!

UPDATE 7:

Statement from Board of Deputies:

Jonathan Arkush, the Board of Deputies’ Vice President and Chairman of the Defence Division, said: “We note that David Ward MP has been censured by the Liberal Democrats. However, the Board regards this as wholly inadequate. The whip should have been withdrawn and he should have been warned that he risked being expelled from the party. The Board further notes that Mr Ward’s offensive statement remains on his website, which hardly inspires confidence in the sincerity of his apology.”

Quite!

Israel Elections Wrongfoot Usual Suspect Lefties

Jonathan Hoffman — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:29:17 +0000

http://cifwatch.com/2013/01/22/the-guardian-gets-it-wrong-exit-polls-ind...

And remember Jonathan Freedland's warning in the JC last Friday to those of us who opposed the Board's Oxfam tie-up:

On Tuesday Israel is set to elect what many believe will be the most right-wing government in the Jewish state’s history. That’s not just the view of usual suspect lefties. .... there are about to be many, many people opposed to the Israeli government... If we decide that we can only have contact with those who support the Israeli government ... we are about to become very lonely. For we will find that we have no one to talk to but ourselves.

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/98741/this-about-more...

Looks like Mr Freedland was "crying wolf"...

What a shame the "usual suspect lefties" will not be able to say "I told you so!".

But I'm sure that won't stop them finding some other reason to vilify Israel.

Why the Board Should Vote "No" To Oxfam

Jonathan Hoffman — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:32:10 +0000

This is an edited version of the original, sent to Deputies - full links were appended. The motion to partner with Oxfam was carried 113 - 65, 15 abstentions

1. Why are you bringing this motion?

(a) Because the Oxfam project was initiated undemocratically

Whether or not you support it, in all likelihood the first you knew about the Grow Tatzmiach project was when you read about it in the JC in November.

Is this why you became a Deputy?

To have important decisions made in secret by the Board of Deputies Executive?

It’s entirely wrong that the Executive should push through such a project without discussion and a vote in the Board. It makes a mockery of the Board’s claim to be ‘democratic’. To the best of our knowledge even the Communities Issues Division under its new Chair has never discussed and voted on this project (save for hearing and vetoing our motion – which is not the same thing at all!). It is hardly conducive to encouraging people to stand as Deputies if an important and obviously controversial decision is presented to them as a fait accompli.
We are giving you a chance to make a difference to Board policy

(b) Because it is questionable whether the Board should be doing this at all

We question whether the Board under its Constitution should even be involved in this kind of project. The Board has 9 aims. One of them enjoins the Board to “Promote a better understanding of the Jewish Community within the UK and, to that end, develop relations with other ethnic and minority groups”. It does not say that we should undertake projects with charities such as Oxfam.

However we would not be bringing this motion if the Board was cooperating with one of the thousands of charities that do not delegitimise and demonise Israel. Our problem is with Oxfam. Oxfam is one of the four UK charities (alongside War On Want, Christian Aid, Save The Children) consistently displaying the greatest hostility to Israel . Here are some examples. Links in footnotes can also be found in the accompanying WORD document.

30 October 2012: Crisis Action, a London-based umbrella group of NGOs, called on the EU to implement a boycott of goods from Judea and Samaria. The report (“Trading Away Peace” ) was written and distributed by Crisis Action. It bears the logos of 22 members of Crisis Action. While Oxfam is not one, it is a “Core Partner” and one of 19 “Current Funders” of Crisis Action and when we asked it to distance itself from the boycott recommendation, it refused . And as recently as 2009 when Oxfam ended its contract with the actress Kristin Davis – who had been an Oxfam Ambassador – it explicitly endorsed a partial boycott, saying “Oxfam remains opposed to settlement trade.” So much for the statement you received from the Board on 24 December (“Oxfam has never called for a boycott of any Israeli goods, including settlement goods”).

July 2012: Oxfam itself produced a report (On the Brink) recommending that NGOs should engage in explicit violations of international law by “initiat[ing] and support[ing] development projects in the Jordan Valley and other parts ...of Area C...even if they have not been approved by the Israeli Civil Administration” (Area C is the part of Judea and Samaria where, under the Oslo Accords, Israel has full civil and security control (except over Palestinian civilians)).

A spokesman at the Embassy of Israel in London, Amir Ofek, commented :

Oxfam's latest report on the situation in the Palestinian territories puts a clearly political agenda above any humanitarian concern. Its call to the international community and to NGOs to initiate projects which clearly violate existing agreements is irresponsible and inflammatory. Far from advancing peace, such an approach undermines the prospects of reaching a negotiated resolution to the conflict

The report also demonises Israel for allegedly depriving the Palestinians of water: “In 1967, there were 209 active Palestinian wells in the Jordan Valley; today there are just 89. This is mainly due to Israeli restrictions on Palestinian well and water resource development.” This is simply untrue. The truth is that Palestinians’ share of aquifers increased dramatically once control of Judea/Samaria passed from Jordan to Israel in 1967, despite Israel’s limited water supply. Most of the water problems in the Palestinian territories are caused by the failure of the Palestinian Authority to implement Israeli-approved projects. Over half of the wells approved for exploitation of the territory’s Eastern aquifer, for instance, have still not been drilled, though Israel approved permits for the project in 2000.

December 2009: It was lobbying by Oxfam which led the UK government to introduce guidelines on voluntary labelling of goods and produce originating from Judea and Samaria. This only served to encourage the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) lobby. Note that Oxfam had lobbied for compulsory labelling.

October 2009: Oxfam was accused by an Israeli NGO, Regavim, of being involved in constructing a water-siphoning system, which illegally diverted water from the “main authorised Palestinian water supply.”
August 2009: Oxfam severed ties with actress Kristin Davis (who had been an Oxfam Ambassador) due to her work endorsing the Israeli Ahava cosmetics company. In its statement Oxfam explicitly endorsed a partial boycott, saying “Oxfam remains opposed to settlement trade.”

January 2009: In a comment about Gaza after Operation Cast Lead, Oxfam International’s Director Jeremy Hobbs said: “The people of Gaza are living in the world’s largest prison but have fewer rights than convicts’ . This comment demonised Israel. Hobbs made no reference to the truckloads of goods entering Gaza every day nor did he mention why security measures were necessary – namely, because of the thousand of missiles being fired by Hamas terrorists at civilians in Israel’s south.

2003: Oxfam’s Belgian Office produced a poster of an “Israeli orange” dripping with blood to promote boycotts. The caption read: “Israeli fruits have a bitter taste...reject the occupation of Palestine, don't buy Israeli fruits and vegetables.”

Oxfam consistently paints a highly misleading picture of the Arab-Israeli conflict , departing from its humanitarian mission focused on poverty. Most Oxfam statements erase all complexity and blame Israel exclusively for the situation, and these distortions and their impacts contribute significantly to conflict. Further examples were provided by Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director, Oxfam International, who said of Operation Cast Lead: “It has been a form of collective punishment illegal under international humanitarian law yet tolerated by the international community.” And in an Oxfam Press Release (29 December 2008) John Prideaux-Brune, Oxfam’s country programme manager in Jerusalem, said “The international community must not stand aside and allow Israeli leaders to commit massive and disproportionate violence against Gazan civilians in violation of international law .”

Oxfam also distorts economic analyses of the West Bank and Gaza, repeatedly arguing that that the sole impediment to Palestinian development is Israeli policy, ignoring intra-Palestinian limitations and factors.

(d) Because Oxfam partners with some deeply questionable organisations

A paper published this week by Stand For Peace demonstrates that Oxfam has no qualms in partnering with some very unpleasant organisations.

The Executive of the Board has said it will discontinue the Grow Tatzmiach project if Oxfam “partners with or supports any organisation that promotes or condones violence or partners with or supports any organisation that calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.” The ‘Stand For Peace’ paper demonstrates that Oxfam’s links with such organisations are so numerous and so deep that even if the project goes ahead, it would need to be abandoned within days. Anyone who thinks that Oxfam is going to drop all these relationships simply in order to maintain the Grow Tatzmiach project is living in cloud-cuckoo land.

(e) Because the Oxfam project violates the Constitution

The Oxfam tieup violates one of the Board’s aims under its Constitution. The fourth of the Board’s nine aims in the Constitution is to "Take such appropriate action as lies within its power to advance Israel's security, welfare and standing". It has a second Constitutional responsibility to: "Support and seek to protect Jews and Jewish communities outside the UK" That includes Jews in Israel and in the Disputed Territories.

Cooperating with Oxfam (with the exception of persuading them to change their anti-Israel discourse and policies) runs directly counter to these constitutional obligations.

2. What damage does an Oxfam tieup do to the Jewish Community?

The Oxfam tieup sends entirely the wrong message to the worldwide Jewish Community and to the many non-Jewish supporters of Israel throughout the world. It gives a seal of approval (a hecksher) to Oxfam from the UK Jewish Community. There is little doubt that this is Oxfam’s agenda and the reason why they are willing to put £8000 into this project. They clearly want to sanitise Oxfam for those who on principle do not donate to anti-Israel charities.

We emphasise that we are NOT trying to ‘boycott’ Oxfam. To the extent that dialogue with Oxfam is aimed at moderating its anti-Israel discourse and policies, we welcome it and indeed would welcome being part of it.

3. What message does the Oxfam tieup send about the Board’s attitude to Israel?

Particularly to Israelis, the Oxfam tieup sends entirely the wrong message about the Board’s attitude to Israel. Here is a message received from an Israeli resident, Hadar Sela:

The traditionally warm ties between the British Jewish community and Israel make the decision by representatives of that community to partner an organisation with a rich history of delegitimisation of Israelis especially perplexing and demoralising to those of us committed to the two-state solution which the BDS movement - of which Oxfam is part - rejects

The Board will rightly be accused of inconsistency. The Oxfam tie-up is diametrically at odds with the Board’s stance on the Co-Op’s partial boycott. How can activists trying to change the Co-Op’s policy carry any credibility, when the Board is seen to be happy to cooperate with Oxfam? The same applies to those attempting to change the stance of the Methodists, the Quakers, the University and College Union and many others. This Oxfam tieup effectively pulls the rug from under the feet of anti-boycott campaigners. It emboldens Israel’s enemies – they will say “If even the Jewish community accepts Oxfam’s anti-Israel discourse and policies, then Israel must unquestionably be in the wrong.”

In summary ….

VOTE ‘NO’ ON SUNDAY TO THE OXFAM TIE-UP!